Nearly 3 in 4 US comfort foods share a surprising nutritional feature

By Dr. Priyom Bose, Ph.D.Reviewed by Lauren HardakerOct 6 2026

From chips and ice cream to pizza and chocolate, America’s go-to comfort foods differ widely, but nearly three-quarters meet criteria for hyperpalatability, and demographic differences are surprisingly small.

Study: The Nutrition Facts of Comfort Foods in the United States: Results from the Census-Matched Eating in America Study. Image credit: Catherine Murray/Shutterstock.com

A recent Nutrients study examined the nutritional quality, processing level, and demographic differences of popular comfort foods in the US using survey and nutrient database analysis.

Health implications of comfort eating and food processing

Comfort eating refers to consuming food in response to negative emotional or psychological states and is closely linked to emotional and stress-related eating. These foods are typically palatable, energy-dense, and high in fat, sugar, and salt. Comfort eating affects a significant proportion of the population. Most studies on comfort food preferences rely on nonrepresentative samples and offer limited insight into these foods' nutritional characteristics. Large-scale, comprehensive analyses of the nutrient profiles and processing attributes of comfort foods remain scarce.

The US food environment is dominated by energy-dense, hyperpalatable, ultra-processed products containing synergistic combinations of fat, sugar, and sodium, plus industrial additives. Ultra-processed foods (UPF) frequently contain few whole-food ingredients and tend to be nutrient-poor and energy-dense, with elevated levels of fats, added sugars, and salt.

High intakes of fat, sugar, and sodium are linked to adverse health outcomes. In the context of comfort eating, previous research has linked the behavior to abdominal obesity, type II and pre-diabetes risk, cardiovascular risk, and stroke. Researchers have also raised concerns about the potentially addictive or reinforcing properties of hyperpalatable foods, while UPF intake is associated with increased mortality. Perceived stress also correlates with higher UPF consumption. Yet, representative data on comfort food nutrition and processing are limited.

Nutritional analysis of popular US comfort foods

A national survey (UCLA Eating in America Study, Dec 2019–Jan 2020) included 2,022 adults recruited using US census-based quotas for age, gender, race/ethnicity, income, and region. Of these, 1,760 had analyzable comfort food data and could nominate up to three comfort foods, yielding 5,280 possible nomination slots. Two research assistants coded responses using a standardized protocol; non-food or unclear answers were excluded from analysis.

Nutritional information for each comfort food was sourced from the United States Department of Agriculture’s What We Eat in America (WWEIA) database. When unavailable, brand websites or food labels were used. Nutrient values per 100g were converted to standard serving sizes. For combination foods, nutrients for each component were calculated and summed.

Foods were classified by nutrient content as high (>20% daily value (DV)), moderate (5–20% DV), or low (<5% DV) sources. Hyperpalatability was assessed using criteria for fat, sugar, sodium, and carbohydrate content, grouping foods as high-fat/high-sugar (desserts), high-fat/high-sodium (meats/meals), or high-carb/high-sodium (breads/carbs).

UPF status was determined by the Nova classification system. Foods were matched to Nova Group 4, or similar foods if needed. Combination foods’ UPF content was calculated proportionally.

Comfort food choices and their nutritional profile in the US

Of the 2,022 adults surveyed, 1,760 provided analyzable comfort food responses, and around 70% of these named at least one food that could be nutritionally assessed. Men and adults aged 55 and older were somewhat less likely to provide a nutritionally codable food, while nomination rates did not differ by region.

Despite the variety of responses, Americans largely converged on familiar favorites. Chips topped the list, followed by ice cream, pizza, chocolate and cookies. Candy, burgers, cake and pasta also ranked highly, while more nutritious choices such as nuts, fruit and vegetables appeared further down the list. In total, researchers identified 300 nutritionally distinct foods, which they grouped into 132 broader categories.

The nutritional picture was mixed but leaned heavily toward highly palatable and processed foods. In an unweighted analysis of the 300 distinct foods, the average serving contained 223 calories, with 39% from fat and 18% from sugar. Most foods were low in fiber, while nearly three-quarters met criteria for being hyperpalatable.

Ultra-processing was also common, although the figures depended on how it was measured. Across the 300 foods, an average of 57% of calories came from ultra-processed Nova Group 4 sources. Using a stricter definition that required all calories to come from Group 4, 43% of foods qualified as fully ultra-processed, while 36% were both fully ultra-processed and hyperpalatable. The authors said this conservative definition probably underestimated the prevalence of ultra-processed foods.

Pasta stood out as the only top-10 comfort food that was neither hyperpalatable nor classified as 100% ultra-processed. By contrast, all constituent foods making up the top four categories: chips, ice cream, pizza and chocolate, met both classifications.

Differences between demographic groups were statistically significant but generally small. Men's choices tended to be slightly higher in calories, protein, fat, and sodium, while women's contained somewhat more sugar. Men also favored more high-fat, high-sodium "meats/meal" foods, whereas women nominated more dessert-type foods and fully ultra-processed choices.

Age showed a similar pattern. Compared with adults aged 18–34, those aged 55 and older chose foods averaging about 41 fewer calories per serving, alongside lower amounts of several nutrients, including fat, carbohydrates and sodium. However, saturated fat and sugar did not significantly differ between the two groups, and there were no significant nutrient differences between adults aged 18–34 and those aged 35–54.

Regional differences were also modest. Northeasterners tended to nominate foods higher in calories and several nutrients than people in the South and Midwest, with some differences also seen in the West. But the nutritional differences between regions amounted to no more than about 4% of recommended daily values, reinforcing the researchers' broader conclusion that where people lived, their age and their gender mattered less than the overall similarities in America's comfort food choices.

America's comfort foods could benefit from healthier choices

The current study highlights the broad variability and commonality among top US adult comfort foods. Demographic differences appear minimal, and the dominance of these foods may reflect the widespread influence of the US food system, underscoring opportunities to guide healthier comfort food choices in contexts of stress or negative affect.

The study has several limitations. Participants were asked to name their favorite comfort foods rather than report what they actually ate, so the researchers could not determine how often or how much these foods were consumed, whether people turned to them during periods of stress, or how they fit into their broader diets and health.

The researchers also gave each of the 300 unique foods equal weight in the nutritional analysis, regardless of how frequently it was nominated, while nutrient databases and food-classification methods introduced additional uncertainty.

Future research should aim to address these gaps by exploring weighted analyses, more nuanced measures of intake, and sociocultural factors shaping comfort food preferences. Continued investigation into the health implications of comfort eating and the development of tailored interventions will be crucial for informing public health strategies.